Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause

[colmcille1]

Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

Hi Betterave,
May I draw your attention (and hopefully his too) to post#368, page 25 of this thread.
You have indeed dismantled the argument of a bigot!
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[secular_freedom]

LOL! Wow! First, you really need a logic refresher! Begging the question means you assume what you need to prove. You can’t refer to the form of the argument that YOU ACCEPT as being established if others don’t accept that it is established. That is called begging the question.

Second, you’re amalgamating the argument presented in this thread with an even more foolish one presented in another thread.

Third, (4) to (5) is a non sequitur, as has been repeatedly pointed out.

1. The fact that others don’t accept that it is established doesn’t mean it isn’t established. The crucial premises of the argument have been adequately defended on here, despite your conviction to the contrary. Facts are facts, and your persistent mere denials of the obvious are no longer relevant.
2. Notwithstanding your mere assertions to the contrary, (4) to (5) is not a non-sequitur.
3. Do continue to make yourself look foolish.

 

[Betterave]

My favorite Rousseau quote: “je ne sais pas l’art d’etre clair pour qui ne veut pas etre attentif” - i.e., I do not know the art of being clear, to one who does not want to be attentive.

 

[MarkInOregon]

How about when that group is the Supreme Court? There is no question that the right to marry is constitutionally protected.

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival… To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Loving v. Virginia (388 U.S. 1 [1967])

In this case the descrimination exists because two men (of different races) would not be able to marry the same woman. One of them would be prevented from marrying her simply because of their race–they would not have the same rights. This is not the same as the homosexual marriage argument. In the homosexual marriage argument neither of them can marry another man–they have the same rights. You have to redefine what marriage is in order to arrive at the descrimination you wish to claim. One cannot marry two or more people they love–only one–is this descrimination? One cannot marry an animal they claim to love–is that descimiation? And one cannot marry a child they claim to love–is that descrimation? One cannot marry their brother or sister even if they “love” each other-is that descrimination? There are many restrictions on marriage. But there is no descrimination in saying that two men or two woman cannot marry each other unless you want to redefine what marriage is and has always been.

 

[PassingThru]

One cannot marry two or more people they love–only one–is this descrimination?

yes

One cannot marry an animal they claim to love–is that descimiation?

yes

And one cannot marry a child they claim to love–is that descrimation?

yes

One cannot marry their brother or sister even if they “love” each other-is that descrimination?

yes

In these cases, we are discriminating. The difference is that we have deemed this discrimination as justified. You do not have to be a member of some sort of a repressed class, or defined as a minority, or any other such thing. In all of these cases, we justify this discrimination and codify it in law. Prop 8 is attempting to codify into law the presumably justified discrimination that same sex couple be another category of couple not allowed to marry. This has been the practice, but is now going to be explicitly spelled out. The court case is about establishing whether or not it is justified. There is a very good reason all sides involved in this case have not even tried to go down the path of “Prop 8 does not discriminate”. The case is about establishing whether it is justified or not.

 

[larkin31]

In these cases, we are discriminating. The difference is that we have deemed this discrimination as justified. You do not have to be a member of some sort of a repressed class, or defined as a minority, or any other such thing. In all of these cases, we justify this discrimination and codify it in law. Prop 8 is attempting to codify into law the presumably justified discrimination that same sex couple be another category of couple not allowed to marry. This has been the practice, but is now going to be explicitly spelled out. The court case is about establishing whether or not it is justified. There is a very good reason all sides involved in this case have not even tried to go down the path of “Prop 8 does not discriminate”. The case is about establishing whether it is justified or not.

precisely

 

[MarkInOregon]

OK I will sum up my original post if you do not want to search for it in one question"

Why should ANYONE accept the so-called “traditional” definition of marriage as the only form of marriage when the premises upon which it defended are not even true?

And you are the arbitur of truth now? You proved that these premises are false? (And you realize that just because people act contrary to truth doesn’t mean something isn’t true don’t you?) And you have finally found the “true” definition of marriage for us? Aren’t we lucky.
Of course–when there is no ultimate source of truth–we all make up our own–truth is what we want it to be. We don’t like the definition of marriage – so we’ll make up a new one – one that we like–one that fits the way we want things to be.
We’ll conform the truth to our lives rather than our lives to the truth and we’ll call anyone who doesn’t agree with us a bigot, we’ll call them intolerant, we’ll say they’re afraid of us and call them “phobes” and we’ll pat ourselves on the back for being so tolerant and enlightened. Of course we only tolerate those who think like us the rest are, well you know, intolerant hate mongering bigots and phobes. Yes we are the tolerant ones.

We are dangerously close to living in society where instead of being endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights–we are endowed by our government with certain rights which they give and which they can easily take away.

 

[PassingThru]

We are dangerously close to living in society where instead of being endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights–we are endowed by our government with certain rights which they give and which they can easily take away.

If I believe differently than you, and I believe my creator gives rights to a gay couple to marry, how do we find a solution?

 

[Oresteian]

Correction: because you are not a very good reader you think my argument implies this.

Denial of what is obvious to many of us. Keep telling yourself that story.

I’ve already answered this question! One reason, again, it can, is because they have in common with a young man and a young woman the fact of having been a young man and a young woman and the fact of still being a man and a woman (again, you don’t have to be very bright to see this as “daddy-figure” and “mommy-figure”). Why should anyone accept WHAT as the only legitimate form of marriage? Is this another question that I’ve already answered, or another straw man?

Don’t be glib. You assert that a man and a woman in marriage represent the procreative ideal. Why should we accept the “procreative ideal” as the only legitimate marriage combination when there are sundry other ways and reasons for marriage? Your justification for such has not really been forthcoming.

A daddy-figure and a mommy figure are social constructs about what society thinks parents OUGHT to be like. It is unclear if there are not other kinds of roles and arrangements that are just as good or better nor can anyone demonstrate that other arrangements produce harm on society or those involved in the contract.

Okay, here’s the problem: you apparently don’t read (with comprehension) what I write or even what you write. Again, you wrote: ‘biblically speaking, marriage was hardly ever “one man, one woman” as polygyny was quite common.’

This statement contains a true claim P: “polygyny was quite common”; a false claim M: “marriage was hardly ever ‘one man, one woman’”; contains one non sequitur: P so M; and implies another: [P and M] so N (N = “there is no biblical/historical precedent for the calling ‘same-sex marriage’ absurd”).

I mention polygyny as only an example of against “one man, one woman”. Issues such as rape, wife stealing, war whores, fornication, adultery, and prostitution come to mind as well. If there is a biblical prescription for traditional marriage, one would be hard pressed to find inspiration for that arrangement in the characters of the Bible.

LOL! This is getting tiresome. Here’s what you originally wrote: “it is not true that there was NEVER same sex marriage in the past, for example the Ancient Romans and a couple others did have it.” So why did you bring this up? To prove that nobody needs to justify their particular conception of marriage? But you’ve done nothing of the sort! You’ve only proved that you have no justification for your conception of marriage and aren’t even interested in having one! You just want to beg the whole question! Time for you to crack open those logic text books again.

I brought it up originally to show that the historical basis for “traditional marriage” is unsound. It is a conception based on Western European Christian tradition. Marriage practices vary between cultures and different time periods and is not some fixed foundational idea. This was offered as an example of an alternative marriage arrangement that had nothing to do with the “procreative ideal” and yet was sanctioned by the society in which it occurred.

Your request for justification of same sex marriage needing some further warrant on the grounds that it is homosexual is just misguided. There need be no further justification other than the desire to create and maintain bonds of kinship. The “goodness” of marriage for society comes because the individuals involved have a sense of security belonging, and wholeness and when these needs are met for individuals,They are on the road to self actualization and when self actualizing individuals participate fully in society, such a society is simply better off than it would be otherwise. If a same sex marriage does this just as well as a heterosexual marriage, why would we not encourage that?

 

[larkin31]

And you are the arbitur of truth now? You proved that these premises are false?

The premise that reproductive potential is a necessary requirement for legal marriage is false.

 

[Oresteian]

Duh! - which is a groundless assertion, apparently based on your bigotry, NOT an explanation with reference to the argument that I have actually offered here!

Mere assertion and projection. The evidence for my statement comes from pages of your
drivel.

Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

Do you understand how a catch-22 works? You have repeatedly asked the same questions here that have already been answered, so apparently you are obstinately and intolerantly devoted to your own opinions and prejudices, and your obstinate intolerance manifests in the groundless, obstinate, and fallacious ad hominem dismissal of my view as “rooted in your religious beliefs and little else more” - good one!

Another mere assertion. I an others have repeatedly pointed out why your responses are lacking. Whether you accept them or not is a decision YOU have to make.

Do you understand how a catch-22 works?

Yup.

LOL! Wow! First, you really need a logic refresher! Begging the question means you assume what you need to prove. You can’t refer to the form of the argument that YOU ACCEPT as being established if others don’t accept that it is established. That is called begging the question.

Second, you’re amalgamating the argument presented in this thread with an even more foolish one presented in another thread.

Third, (4) to (5) is a non sequitur, as has been repeatedly pointed out.

I think secular freedom has already addressed this adequately. I will add that this has been stated and restated in several forms on here, and I posted the form that I htink best sums up the argument.

 

[Oresteian]

So if a non-Mexican is allowed to do something a Mexican is not allowed to do, it is discrimination based on being Mexican? I thought you had understood that this form of argument was an obvious non sequitur - what happened?

You need to try to read more carefully and to actually understand what you’re reading. Seriously

.

“IF…” - right. But you can’t because you clearly don’t understand ‘fallaciousness’ very well… which is no big deal, it’s just too bad that you’re so stubborn about thinking that you do.

Again, you really need to learn to read more carefully and open-mindedly. I obviously have answered that question.

I think I am finished answering anything Betterave has to say. This is going nowhere.

 

[Oresteian]

Oresteian,
I repeat: I NEVER retreat.
It is dreadfully obvious to me that hatred makes you happy.
I knew that sooner or later your hatred would manifest itself.
This is a serious defect in your character and is an obvious impediment to your debating capability.
But, happily, said hatred is not irreversible. As a sinner, there is a Sacramental remedy.
I caution you though that you must receive with a contrite heart.
Your reference above to other posters on this thread is symptomatic of an immature and uncharitable mind.
And tell me please, where exactly did I post a Scriptural reference?..
That’s it, I did no such thing. But the bloodlust in your mind made you assume (as a lot of non-believers are wont to do) that I had.
So, in conclusion, I will pray for you, my friend, because, despite all the words you post here and the conditions you lay down for said posting, your heart speaks to me with a deeper, more disturbing, tone.
God gives us the strength to change.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

A lot of projection. I do not think I said you made a scriptural reference at all. I said

Even those I disagree with here at least attempted to steer away from theology but you jumped right in with Leviticus (figuratively speaking).That’s pretty

On the basis that you stated we must “hate the sin, love the sinner” in reference to homosexuality (suggesting that homosexuality is a sin which is a theological concept). You then go on to speak of god given souls and how we should feed it with scripture. You then follow it up with more dogmatizing. Not everyone is a Catholic or Christian. In order to keep the dialogue in the common realm I specifically requested that we avoid such topics. I merely pointed out that others have attempted to do so to show that such a goal is achievable.

You seem more interested in evangelizing and being “holier-than-thou” and have no interest in the actual topic we are discussing.

 

[Oresteian]

Hi Betterave,
May I draw your attention (and hopefully his too) to post#368, page 25 of this thread.
You have indeed dismantled the argument of a bigot!
God Bless,
Colmcille.

Nothing I said can be construed as bigotry. If my firmness in my conviction on same sex marriage is seen by you as bigotry, it is no firmer than your opinions to the contrary.

 

[colmcille1]

A lot of projection. I do not think I said you made a scriptural reference at all. I said

Same thing, my friend! You were working your way towards your well-rehearsed opinions about Catholics. THAT is what I was referring to when I said your hatred/bigotry/unkindness
showed itself.

On the basis that you stated we must “hate the sin, love the sinner” in reference to homosexuality (suggesting that homosexuality is a sin which is a theological concept). You then go on to speak of god given souls and how we should feed it with scripture. You then follow it up with more dogmatizing. Not everyone is a Catholic or Christian. In order to keep the dialogue in the common realm I specifically requested that we avoid such topics. I merely pointed out that others have attempted to do so to show that such a goal is achievable.

True. Others have attempted but your answers are already in your head so is it not logical to then try the religious route? Why are you afraid?

You seem more interested in evangelizing and being “holier-than-thou” and have no interest in the actual topic we are discussing.

Believe me, my friend, if you knew me personally, the last thing you would accuse me of is a “holier-than-thou” stance!
I have a healthy interest in said topic. I also possess a finely-tuned b/s detector.(It’s an excellent tool as I use it for self-censorship all the time!)
It is quite true that “not everyone is a Catholic or Christian”. We all, however, whether you like it or not, are sinners.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Oresteian]

Same thing, my friend! You were working your way towards your well-rehearsed opinions about Catholics. THAT is what I was referring to when I said your hatred/bigotry/unkindness
showed itself.

Well, rehearsed opinions? Unkindness? I’m sorry you feel that way but I simply do not crusade against Catholicism. I may not agree with them, but so what? I think you are making some gross assumptions about me based on the the fact that I am not a Catholic.

True. Others have attempted but your answers are already in your head so is it not logical to then try the religious route? Why are you afraid?

I have no fear talking about religion. I have studied philosophy of religion for a while and have a healthy interest in the subject. The issue is uncommon reference.

If I tried to make an argument about,…let me see…dietary laws based on Hinduism or Islam or some other religion would you find it convincing as a Catholic? My bet is on “no”. There is simply no common dialogue that can be had since the worldviews are irreconcilable.

Keeping the conversation away from religious opinions makes the problem simpler than it otherwise would have been. For example if you as a Catholic decides to bring in your argument based on your faith, then someone who is also religious who may not be Catholic will bring in theirs so people have to answer both the Catholic and the Jewish/Islamic/Jain/Wiccan response and then the conversation just degrades into a theological. It has nothing to do with disdain for Catholicism or Christianity in general.

Furthermore you cannot determine from anything I said my attitudes toward Catholicism or Catholics from anything I said other than I disagree with them, but the basis for such disagreement is not unique to either.

BTW, I think you are projecting again.

We all, however, whether you like it or not, are sinners.

Your opinion offered with no proof.

If you are gonna actually talk about the debate topic, go ahead. I really have no desire to address WHY we should keep secular about secular matters any further.

 

[Betterave]

I think I am finished -]answering/-] failing to answer anything Betterave has to say. This is going nowhere.

 

[Betterave]

In these cases, we are discriminating. The difference is that we have deemed this discrimination as justified. You do not have to be a member of some sort of a repressed class, or defined as a minority, or any other such thing. In all of these cases, we justify this discrimination and codify it in law. Prop 8 is attempting to codify into law the presumably justified discrimination that same sex couple be another category of couple not allowed to marry. This has been the practice, but is now going to be explicitly spelled out. The court case is about establishing whether or not it is justified. There is a very good reason all sides involved in this case have not even tried to go down the path of “Prop 8 does not discriminate”. The case is about establishing whether it is justified or not.

Hey passingthru, you may just be passing through, but if you had read (and understood) the arguments presented in this thread, you would realize that you are begging the question here. Marriage laws do discriminate on the basis of consanguinity, but Prop 8 does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

 

[Betterave]

1. The fact that others don’t accept that it is established doesn’t mean it isn’t established. CORRECT. The crucial premises of the argument have NOT been adequately defended on here, - despite your conviction to the contrary THEY HAVE BEEN ADEQUATELY REFUTED. Facts are facts, and your persistent mere denials of the obvious are no longer relevant - PERSISTENT MERE DENIALS OF THE OBVIOUS ARE NEVER RELEVANT (EXCEPT AS AN INDICATOR THAT PERSONS LIKE YOURSELF ARE OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY).
2. -]Notwithstanding your mere assertions to the contrary,/-] (4) to (5) is -]not /-]a non-sequitur, JUST AS ORESTEIAN HAS IMPLICITLY ADMITTED, THOUGH HE SEEMS TO HAVE TROUBLE WITH BEING CONSISTENT.
3. Do continue to make yourself look foolish. GOOD ONE.

 

[Betterave]

Denial of what is obvious to many of us. Keep telling yourself that story.

Many of you who obviously don’t understand logic nearly as well as I do.

Don’t be glib. You assert that a man and a woman in marriage represent the procreative ideal. Why should we accept the “procreative ideal” as the only legitimate marriage combination when there are sundry other ways and reasons for marriage? Your justification for such has not really been forthcoming.

“Why should we?” is a logically distinct question from “do we?” Do you understand that?

A daddy-figure and a mommy figure are social constructs about what society thinks parents OUGHT to be like. It is unclear if there are not other kinds of roles and arrangements that are just as good or better nor can anyone demonstrate that other arrangements produce harm on society or those involved in the contract.

Sure, they’re social constructs - so what? You have given no reason for thinking that’s all they are or for thinking a) that they are not extremely important social constructs, b) which can justifiably be demolished at the behest of self-appointed social deconstructors.

I mention polygyny as only an example of against “one man, one woman”. Issues such as rape, wife stealing, war whores, fornication, adultery, and prostitution come to mind as well. If there is a biblical prescription for traditional marriage, one would be hard pressed to find inspiration for that arrangement in the characters of the Bible.

Those are your opinions, silly ones, as they seem to me. But how is any of that relevant to the argument presented here? (Other than as confirmation that you have bigoted attitudes towards religion.)

I brought it up originally to show that the historical basis for “traditional marriage” is unsound. It is a conception based on Western European Christian tradition. Marriage practices vary between cultures and different time periods and is not some fixed foundational idea. This was offered as an example of an alternative marriage arrangement that had nothing to do with the “procreative ideal” and yet was sanctioned by the society in which it occurred.

But if the historical basis for “traditional marriage” is based on western European Christian tradition, so what? Same goes, mutatis mutandis, for the Constitution - so what? Seems like you’re just arguing against another straw man.

Your request for justification of same sex marriage -]needing some further warrant /-] [redundant phrase] on the grounds that it is homosexual is just misguided.

You misinterpret my argument again: I did not ask for justification on the grounds that it is homosexual. Where are you getting this from??

There need be no further justification other than the desire to create and maintain bonds of kinship. The “goodness” of marriage for society comes because the individuals involved have a sense of security belonging, and wholeness and when these needs are met for individuals,They are on the road to self actualization and when self actualizing individuals participate fully in society, such a society is simply better off than it would be otherwise. If a same sex marriage does this just as well as a heterosexual marriage, why would we not encourage that?

Natural bonds of kinship are matters of fact for us human beings. If you want to pretend that they are really reducible to pure social constructs that can be unproblematically manipulated by legislation as whoever is in power sees fit…

I hope you realize that your talk of “the road to self-actualization” is a self-serving contruct of your own. Your bland ‘uncontroversial’ use of this term is hopelessly prejudicial in the context of this debate, where we obviously have different ideas about what true “self-actualization” consists of.